(06-08-2021 10:16 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 08:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 08:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  Army is national interest.

Army is located on federal territory. And Army's interest is very narrow, not like a normal university.

I would venture to guess there are plenty of Army vets who cheer for Army.

And right, let’s forget about West Point, NY and call it West Point, USA. Because people actually do that, right?

I think people just call it "West Point", nothing else. And I think most assume that because it's the US Military Academy, it is federal territory and not part of New York the way say Syracuse is. But I admit I haven't conducted a poll on it so who knows?

But IMO the real issue here is what I consider the overrating of the military academies on this board. Yes, all military academies, by their nature, have veterans scattered throughout the country. Plus, many civilians, like myself, have a soft spot for the academy football teams for patriotic reasons.

Still, I refuse to believe that Army, Navy or Air Force have much "brand value" from a conference POV. Maybe it's my age, but when I began watching football in the 1970s, the military academies were held in the lowest regard from an athletic perspective. They were regarded as the easiest "Little Sisters of the Poor" kinds of opponents. For year, decades, haters of Notre Dame took shots at them for scheduling Navy each year, as if that was almost the equivalent of scheduling a high school team or Junior College. The notion that any of the service academies was a "valuable brand" that a conference would be eager to court and sign up would have been a ludicrous concept.

And really, I don't see what objectively has changed about this.

What has changed is your perspective. In the 1970s, you were watching, talking about, thinking about upper-level college football, what are now the P5 schools. Now, you're paying attention to what's now lower-FBS.

Notice that when the football independents coalesced into conferences, Army slotted into the original Conference USA, along with East Carolina.

Quote:So I am mystified when fans of G5 conferences (and it's always G5 conferences, btw, nobody in the B1G or SEC to my knowledge has ever discussed inviting Army) discuss military academies in terms like "well we don't need to expand, but of course if we could get Army, well then that's totally different!". As if Army is Ohio State or USC.

I scratch my head at this, sometimes literally.

Because, relative to the AAC, or any G-5 league, getting Army (or having Navy) would be a big deal. Compared to Ohio State or Arkansas or even Maryland or Purdue or Kansas State or Utah, it's not much. But those aren't the relevant comparisons--the relevant comparisons are UAB and SMU and Colorado State and Boise State and Troy and North Texas.

Maybe a half-dozen G5 schools are objectively stronger brands or programs. You can probably make a case for another half-dozen to a dozen. But the rest are clearly not as nationally relevant as Army or Navy or Air Force.

EDIT: And actually, if I remember right, when the Big 12 was looking to rebound after losing Colorado and Nebraska, and then Missouri, they reached out to Air Force. https://www.espn.com/blog/big12/post/_/i...-air-force

That's the rub - I don't think Air Force is any more valuable than Fresno State, Army any more valuable than Colorado State, etc.

I don't get why people think they are almost quasi-P level in terms of brand.